Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Both iPhone 17 Pro Models Rumored to Feature Three 48MP Cameras

I'm good with any camera design that eliminates phone wobble on a flat surface, since I don't ever put my phones in a case.
 
This mockup with the triple cameras would be terrible in practical use. Theres no where to hold the phone since cameras take up the whole of that side. And it looks like crap. Here’s hoping the ip17 slim has a discreet camera lens setup
 
martinlk said:
I simply don't understand why 48MP camera phones are even a thing. Due to the physical limitations in sensor and lens size, the effective resolution will probably be close to 12-16MP even though the box says 48MP. Add to this that having smaller pixels (because you're putting more MP in the same size sensor) will introduce more noise and less dynamic range because each pixel collects less light compared to a sensor with fewer MP. It seems to me that this is almost entirely a marketing scam; one that actually results in a worse product:
  • More noisy pixels
  • Less dynamic range
  • Larger image sizes (in terms of storage)
  • More processing power required
  • No added image detail over lower-megapixel sensors due to diffraction limits in such a small lens.
Click to expand...
The main camera shooting 24MP by default but also having other options (12, 48) is a good example of why this is neither a marketing scam nor a worse product. If you don't like large file sizes and don't need higher resolutions, keep it to 12MP. You still get benefits from quad bayer and pixel binning. If you like to do actual semi-pro things with your phone like I do, you can get full RAW 48MP capability, even if the light gathering is quite lacking. For things like landscapes or cityscapes it is perfectly fine. My wife likes to print photos so she keeps hers on 24MP and the quality is absolutely amazing for prints, better than the older 12MP for sure (at larger sizes of course). Yes it all gets exaggerated in marketing, as does every other feature, but that doesn't mean it's a scam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r_123
soyazul said:
Everyone copies Apple.
Click to expand...
Only because Apple is seen as the 'default' by the market. Anyone deviating too far from the norm will be ostracised.

It could be argued that all laptops are merely derivitives of the NEC Ultralite for example. The original iPhone was developed in isolation of the LG Prada but they both share similarities, with LG announcing their product in December 2006. It is likely therefore that the 'slabphone' was an inevitable endpoint for the form of mobile phones.
 
While the render for this article isn't apples official design. I would happily welcome a more in-line design similar to Samsung or the google phone. The current triangle design is awful the larger it grows each year. Either make the frame flush with the lenses or line the cameras better....
 
About time. I wish it was a 48MP 3x zoom instead. Then you could do 3x and 6x pretty easily (same as Apple does 1x and 2x with the main lens). That would be far more useful than 5x and 10x for most people but it isn’t a higher number on paper so we won’t see it 😞.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r_123 and Saturn007
martinlk said:
I simply don't understand why 48MP camera phones are even a thing. Due to the physical limitations in sensor and lens size, the effective resolution will probably be close to 12-16MP even though the box says 48MP. Add to this that having smaller pixels (because you're putting more MP in the same size sensor) will introduce more noise and less dynamic range because each pixel collects less light compared to a sensor with fewer MP. It seems to me that this is almost entirely a marketing scam; one that actually results in a worse product:
  • More noisy pixels
  • Less dynamic range
  • Larger image sizes (in terms of storage)
  • More processing power required
  • No added image detail over lower-megapixel sensors due to diffraction limits in such a small lens.
Click to expand...
i disagree for the 24mm main camera. i agree for the new ultrawide in the 16 pro.

the 48mp files from the main camera (from the iphone 14pro on) are great and resolve a lot more detail than 12mp files - especially in bright conditions.
 
Spatial photos and videos will remain landscape so Apple will need to keep some vertical aspect to the lenses. Just my thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trausner
macjaffa said:
Mine already does this. Get a decent case
Click to expand...
The solution to every design decision by apple - get a case, get an accessory, stay out of bright light, do other things to make up for functional flaws created by design decisions. So yeah, I know there are cases available on the market to solve the decade long issue with 'the big ole uneven lump' on iPhones 🤣
 
It does look very much like the Pixel 9. I actually think the all glass back of the 9 looks a bit more elegant but this comes down to personal choice I suppose.
 
this design… so no spatial video on 16:9??

Or cameras are 16:9 in even if the phone is in portrait orientation?

There are many young people that blocks rotation so they can text laying in bed, and they consume everything in portrait, but this would be too much
 
Glad to hear that it will be similar camera system on both Pro and Pro Max. Very happy to hear that the front camera will be getting an upgrade too. Maybe with the 48 megapixel telephoto lens, 10x optical like zoom will be possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r_123 and mganu
martinlk said:
I simply don't understand why 48MP camera phones are even a thing. Due to the physical limitations in sensor and lens size, the effective resolution will probably be close to 12-16MP even though the box says 48MP. Add to this that having smaller pixels (because you're putting more MP in the same size sensor) will introduce more noise and less dynamic range because each pixel collects less light compared to a sensor with fewer MP. It seems to me that this is almost entirely a marketing scam; one that actually results in a worse product:
  • More noisy pixels
  • Less dynamic range
  • Larger image sizes (in terms of storage)
  • More processing power required
  • No added image detail over lower-megapixel sensors due to diffraction limits in such a small lens.
Click to expand...
As @Ctrlos and others have said, it enables binning and other processing tricks. It’s plausible that the phone form factor places a very low limit on the image quality gains that are physically/economically possible, so adding data for processing tricks—which are inevitably needed anyway—easy outstrips them in marketability if not quantitative performance. Depth of field was one major precedent.
 
ZZ9pluralZalpha said:
As @Ctrlos and others have said, it enables binning and other processing tricks. It’s plausible that the phone form factor places a very low limit on the image quality gains that are physically/economically possible, so adding data for processing tricks—which are inevitably needed anyway—easy outstrips them in marketability if not quantitative performance. Depth of field was one major precedent.
Click to expand...
And if we’re being honest bigger numbers look better on the spec sheet in store as well!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZZ9pluralZalpha
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back